Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Army Robots Break Asimov's First Law
buanzo writes "The US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
SWORDS (Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems) robots are equipped with either the M249, machine gun which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at 750 rounds per minute or the M240, which fires 7.62-millimeter rounds at up to 1,000 per minute.
" update this story refers to this article from 2005. But com'on, robots with machine guns! I don't get to think about that most days!
From TFA:
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
While they are harming a human, it's ultimately a human that makes the decision to fire. And who cares about fictional "laws", anyway?
...who fears government having sole access to technology that its own citizens would be jailed for?
Yes, I am likely the biggest anti-State promoter on slashdot, so many will take my opinion with a grain of salt. Yet this is one of those cases where history shows that we the People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use. Tyrant dictators for thousands of years have used the new weapon of the day to keep not just their enemies under their thumbs, but also their own ruled citizens. From the bow to the gun to the airplane to the nuke, those that govern have always had an edge. Sure, most of us wouldn't trust some big corporate CEO in owning a robot that kills, but what protects us from a coup or a tyrant who finally has the ultimate way to control the citizens?
No tinfoil hat today, just an honest opinion (and fear) that these weapons will make us more hated in the rest of the world, as well as offering future dictators a tool to subjugate the citizens. Rather than helping spread democracy, I fear we'll see how slippery that slope gets when very powerful individuals are given even more power.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war. We'd have more money to spend on our families and our communities (of people we generally agree with) rather than providing the future authoritarians a tool of continuing control over our descendents. All the tyrants we've fought in the past have been mere mosquito bites at the village pool compared to the shark attack we face today in our own backyard waters.
Zeroth Law:
A robot must obey any order given to it by the commander-in-chief or his appointee.
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless it conflicts with the Zeroth Law.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the previous laws.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the previous laws.
Or is Slashdot more stuck on Hollywood myths than anyone, convinced that robots must have anthropomorphic traits, flashing non-functional lights, and a canned monotone voice...
I suggest you read Slashdot
The very idea of a rule against hurting humans implies that a robot knows:
1. What hurting means
is it pain? death? financial impact? what about indirect effects? If I help human 1 build a better mousetrap, I am indirectly harming some other human's way of life.
2. What people are
3. Where they are
These are highly non trivial problems. In fact, they're unsolvable to any degree of certainty. They only make sense in a *science fiction* book in which a highly talented author is telling you a story. In the real world, they are meaningless because of their computational intractibility.
In the real world, we use codes of ethics and/or morality. Such codes recognize the fact that there are no absolutes and sometimes making a decision that will ultimately cause harm to someone is inevitable.
So can we please stop with these damned laws already?
These are actually robots
Nope, they're just remote-controlled weapons. They're not programmable.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You have to convince all 200+ countries to demilitarize. Simultaneously. You won't be able to.
... because the problem with that is "individual state militias" can't afford ICBM's, helicopters, attack aircraft, missiles, etc. We now have a defenseless America, and the rest of the world is up to speed. The state of war has been beyond the militia for over 150 years now. You have to prepare for the war 20 years from now, not the war at hand.
End of story.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war.
The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars. We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.
I would argue that Cruise Missiles (US Navy's Tomahawk and USAF's ALCM and GLCM) are more robotic than this remote controlled toy...
Hey, almost any "fire and forget" missle qualifies for this distinction...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
In my mind, a robot operates on it's own. It is a mechanical device that can be programmed to perform specific function in advance and then operates independantly.
A lot of what are called robots are just fancy remote controled cars. In this case, a fancy remote controled car with guns. Fun, but not a robot.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
And, by this, you mean finite ammo supply, right?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
First: two observations:
1) SWORD is remote controlled it is not autonomous like I always thought a true robot in the Asimovian sense had to be.
2) Since we are now including remotely operated vehicles in the definition of a true robot, SWORD is not that different from a Paveway bomb or a Hellfire missile except SWORD doesn't self destruct when it destroys the target.
This begs the question wasn't Asimov's first law broken decades ago, perhaps even by the V1 which was strictly speaking a remote operated vehicle?
Personally I won't begin to worry about Asimovs laws as long as Humans are on the other end. apons.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
....sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads!
:o)
Seriously, however, this is NOT a violation of the 1st Law as the robots don't have the fire / no fire decision.
Using a human operator makes this telepresence, not autonomous killing machines gone wild. (Hey, you sexy tin can...show us your gun!)
I am my own gestalt.
The "laws" are only broken if one considers the ENEMY COMBATANT to be human, and treated as such. There are those who would would say that ENEMY COMBATANTS at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and undisclosed prisons throughout Europe are considered to be somewhat less than human.
I'd agree with you more if we could refine "insurgents" just a little more:
1 Iraqis trying to free their homeland
2 Foreigners trying to help Iraqis free their homeland
3 Sunni Iraqis who know that if the new government succeeds, they lose the privileges they had under Saddam.
4 Foreign Sunnis trying to help group 3.
5,6 Iraqis and foreigners who just want to try and kill Americans.
I can have respect for groups 1 and 2, but not the rest. I also realize that the line between Al Quaeda and groups 5 and 6 is pretty thin. I also lose respect for groups 1 and 2 if they're indiscriminate about innocent lives.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's only a Robot if it's autonomous. Otherwise, it's a Remote Device. Asimov's laws remain unbroken. For now.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Janke Part mad scientist, part lion tamer: sr. software engineer, global team leader, project mana
Bullshit. If the US wanted oil from Iraq, they would have lifted sanctions and bought it, or they would have just abused the oil-for-food program like everyone else. The lack of logic in the blood-for-oil argument is simply astounding. A simple cost/benefit analysis of how much money has been pumped into Iraq vs how much oil has been pumped out will show anyone with more than a handful of neurons that it makes no sense whatsoever to invade for oil. Moreover, even if we accept your gormless suggestion, it still doesn't exclude the possibility of individual soldiers "defending our principles". No matter what you beleive about the US governments goals in Iraq, you'd be pretty hard pressed to show that the majority of soldiers signed on to "defend oil fields".
Where were you guys in Rwanda? Somalia? Basically anywhere in Africa where a coup is actively going on?
Actually there were US soldiers in both Rwanda and Somalia. I guess you didn't see Blackhawk Down?
Rwanda was the UN's show, and it was the UN's call to scale back the number of peacekeepers and allow the Hutus to slaughter the Tutsis. It's one of the many incidents which lead to our loss of faith in the UN, and it's part of the reason why the US was willing to go to war in Iraq without UN approval.
As for Somalia, US forces initiated operations there early on in the conflict:
Unfortiunately, the UN took over in 1993, and shortly afterwards things took a turn for the worse. US Delta and Rangers were involved in a massive confrontation in Mogadishu, and a secrtain Democrat president decided it was no longer politicaly prudent to have US forces operating in Somalia. Basicaly, he did what the dems have been advocating that we do in Iraq. Luckily this time there's a Republican in office, so Iraq hasn't yet turned into another cut-and-run campaign.
I would suggest that you pick up a history book once in a while.
While this weapon has some "autonomous" capability, like tracking the target after the command to fire is issued, it is still no more a robot than any heat-seeking missile. In that sense any self-guided missile (SAMs or even cruise missiles) can be called "a robot that viloates the First Law". The First Law can only be applied to systems that autonomously make the critical decision "to harm ot not to harm". This system doesn't.
Are there any robots in existence that are Three Laws Safe? Are there any robots at all that have any of Asimov's laws?
We have had UAV's that can kill with bombs for YEARS, and if you know ANYTHING about the M1 Abrams tank, The Apache Longbow, or the F16 etc, you already know that robotic extensions of human capabilities have been present in warfare for decades. This particular case only seems to be a little bit scarier to some because of the semi-anthropomorphised nature of the robot itself. Remember, just because it is not in HUMAN form does not mean it is not a robot.
Of course, if you look at convention four and you realize that either you have to treat someone as a prisoner of war, a hostile civilian (saboteur, spy, ununiformed fighter, etc), or a regular civilian. There is no forth category which affords no rights what-so-ever. Everyone that falls into the control of a country which they are not a national of is protected, perioded. Now, the rights you have are different, depending on your classification, but you still have rights.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
"Yesterday we ran a 100-mile test where the lead vehicle was being driven manually and the robot was following," Jaczkowski said. "We did this successfully where the average speed was about 22 miles per hour. You may think that 22 miles per hour is not that fast when operational convoys are going 60 to 70 miles per hour. But you have to take into account that we did 68 right turns.
"You don't take right turns at 50 miles per hour, especially with a 20-ton robot."
Is it hard reality? No, of course not. But neither are the depictions in Frankenstein, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Jurassic Park, Gattaca, or Animal Farm or Watership Down for that matter. But clearly these are important pieces of thinking on the issues they address--issues like surveillance technology, abuse of political power, genetic manipulation, etc.
Speculative fiction is often where the implications of technological change are first addressed. The most successful practitioners are literally thought leaders, because their stories are sometimes the first to draw out concepts of the future to possible implications or conclusions. That is why science fiction authors are often sought out as consultants to private or public enterprises that push tech barriers. It's not because they are necessarily "right" about the future, but because they are thinking about the issues in unique or broader or farther-reaching ways.
For instance Asimov didn't create his laws as hard-nosed coding advice for modern programmers. They are just part of his larger consideration of a) what it would take for the public to accept sentient robots among them, and b) what are the practical and ethical implications of trying to hard-code rigid laws onto actual intelligence? You say they wouldn't work for law-enforcement robots, and you might be righter than you know...would the public even accept law enforcement robots, even with such laws in place? A question like this is where a science fiction story (and the public reaction to it) can be very illuminating.
Unless you've got some real sentient machines we can use for hard research, we're stuck with thought experiments in considering the implications of such machines. Asimov's stories involving robots are some of the most detailed and coherent examples. They serve as common ground upon which to start conversations...for example this one. They don't need to be "right" or "accurate" to serve that purpose.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
In order for a law to be broken, it has to exist first. A killing machine such as this is merely a gun with a remote control. It's not a robot in the sense that there would even be a place for such a law in its programming.
That's the reality.
Wars are about killing people that want to stop you from doing things that are against their will. Iraq is not liberated, it is occupied and on the brink of civil war. Iraq is doomed and the coalition is going to go home Vietnam-style.
Having big guns means you can beat the shit out of anyone you want, look at the blitzkrieg in 1939-40 in Europe.
Who are you defending? Who lives in the Green Zone? Are you liberating people in China? Are you liberating people in Africa? How about Pakistan, are they going to be liberated?
WWII was modern, and a lot of people got killed. Iraq is a puny little skirmish, that's why body counts are 'low', not because of 'modern warfare'.
Saying that warfare reduces body counts saves lives is pure Orwell. War is Peace.
I really wish people would stop referring to Asimov's Laws of Robotics as if they had any external validity. They applied to FICTIONAL robots in his stories. They have no connection to the real world and real robots, as this article (and undoubtedly endless future warbots will) demonstrates. Breaking them is unremarkable, and referring to them in news stories serves only to perpetuate the idea in the minds of the ignorant that they have significance outside the context of sci-fi.
The Three laws aren't accepted purely because everyone's a big Asimov geek, but because they make sense and they work. He doesn't need to be a robotics expert, Asimov was a very intelligent man and had some marvellous ideas. Ideas come from all kinds of places, not just white-coats. If it wasn't for Star Trek, a lot of real world advanced physics would probably be years behind what we have now.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!